csujake wrote:He literally said "I think they would do better under slavery". You are defending this man???? Seriously? I hope you aren't any kind of a minority....wait....conservative (~40% of the population), white (~25% of the world population), female (52% of the world population, well not there).

That’s exactly what I said. I said I’m wondering if they’re better off under government subsidy, and their young women are having the abortions and their young men are in jail, and their older women and their children are standing, sitting out on the cement porch without nothing to do, you know,I’m wondering: Are they happier now under this government subsidy system than they were when they were slaves, and they was able to have their family structure together, and the chickens and garden, and the people had something to do? And so, in my mind I’m wondering, are they better off being slaves, in that sense, or better off being slaves to the United States government, in the sense of the subsidies. I’m wondering. That’s what. And the statement was right. I am wondering.

I seriously think you didn't read up on this before posting.

Am I defending him? No. But I do believe if you're going to quote somebody, you should know what they said.

I believe you're quoting his explanation of his remarks, rather than the original remarks that started the controversy. The above quote is a somewhat cleaned-up representation of what he said, omitting, for instance, the cotton-picking references.

"...because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn't get no more freedom. They got less freedom."

I cannot decide if my favorite part is when he takes his boot off on national television or when he blames Dr. King for not doing his job because people still get offended when the word "negro" is used.

Yeah, it's really reaching cringe-inducing territory. I read somewhere yesterday that he said he was going to be holding daily press conferences. If that's true, it would almost approach a point where it would seem unethical to cover them, akin to the way entertainment media kept covering Charlie Sheen's rants a few years ago.

I cannot decide if my favorite part is when he takes his boot off on national television or when he blames Dr. King for not doing his job because people still get offended when the word "negro" is used.

Yeah, it's really reaching cringe-inducing territory. I read somewhere yesterday that he said he was going to be holding daily press conferences. If that's true, it would almost approach a point where it would seem unethical to cover them, akin to the way entertainment media kept covering Charlie Sheen's rants a few years ago.

What I find most entertaining is that anyone with a brain could see this man was a nut job from the beginning. Yet the right rallied around him even though you knew he was likely to say something bat crap crazy given enough time in front of a camera.

csujake wrote:He literally said "I think they would do better under slavery". You are defending this man???? Seriously? I hope you aren't any kind of a minority....wait....conservative (~40% of the population), white (~25% of the world population), female (52% of the world population, well not there).

That’s exactly what I said. I said I’m wondering if they’re better off under government subsidy, and their young women are having the abortions and their young men are in jail, and their older women and their children are standing, sitting out on the cement porch without nothing to do, you know,I’m wondering: Are they happier now under this government subsidy system than they were when they were slaves, and they was able to have their family structure together, and the chickens and garden, and the people had something to do? And so, in my mind I’m wondering, are they better off being slaves, in that sense, or better off being slaves to the United States government, in the sense of the subsidies. I’m wondering. That’s what. And the statement was right. I am wondering.

I seriously think you didn't read up on this before posting.

Am I defending him? No. But I do believe if you're going to quote somebody, you should know what they said.

Some people are completely unable to read for comprehension the words that are actually written in a post. So blinded by prejudice and the need to be right that they simply are unable to read just the words which are actually on the screen. Either that, or the poster is simply a contrarian who lives to argue against those whom he/she perceives as a threat to their reality.

The poster whom you replied to is such a case. In my original post, one of the first things that I addressed was the ugliness of Mr. Bundy's statement, if indeed what I had read of it was as stated. I think it was the "if" that threw our friend from Fort Collins.

Having just read the posts on pages 5 and 6 of this thread, I am truly struck by how so many users of this forum are simply dishonest about other posts. My original post is not the only one which denounces as ugly the statements, as they were originally reported, of Mr. Bundy. And yet, many of our usual cast of characters state bold-faced untruths that us "other posters of the Right" agree with racism, slavery, etc. I am amazed, saddened, but hardly surprised. They are smaller versions of their political idols.

csujake wrote:He literally said "I think they would do better under slavery". You are defending this man???? Seriously? I hope you aren't any kind of a minority....wait....conservative (~40% of the population), white (~25% of the world population), female (52% of the world population, well not there).

That’s exactly what I said. I said I’m wondering if they’re better off under government subsidy, and their young women are having the abortions and their young men are in jail, and their older women and their children are standing, sitting out on the cement porch without nothing to do, you know,I’m wondering: Are they happier now under this government subsidy system than they were when they were slaves, and they was able to have their family structure together, and the chickens and garden, and the people had something to do? And so, in my mind I’m wondering, are they better off being slaves, in that sense, or better off being slaves to the United States government, in the sense of the subsidies. I’m wondering. That’s what. And the statement was right. I am wondering.

I seriously think you didn't read up on this before posting.

Am I defending him? No. But I do believe if you're going to quote somebody, you should know what they said.

Some people are completely unable to read for comprehension the words that are actually written in a post. So blinded by prejudice and the need to be right that they simply are unable to read just the words which are actually on the screen. Either that, or the poster is simply a contrarian who lives to argue against those whom he/she perceives as a threat to their reality.

The poster whom you replied to is such a case. In my original post, one of the first things that I addressed was the ugliness of Mr. Bundy's statement, if indeed what I had read of it was as stated. I think it was the "if" that threw our friend from Fort Collins.

Having just read the posts on pages 5 and 6 of this thread, I am truly struck by how so many users of this forum are simply dishonest about other posts. My original post is not the only one which denounces as ugly the statements, as they were originally reported, of Mr. Bundy. And yet, many of our usual cast of characters state bold-faced untruths that us "other posters of the Right" agree with racism, slavery, etc. I am amazed, saddened, but hardly surprised. They are smaller versions of their political idols.

Poor, poor persecuted righties. Can't stand to have the truth about their hero come to light. Maybe you should be a bit more careful about which bandwagon you jump on next time and then you won't have to be so saddened.

ATLborn79 wrote:Where in the Constitution does it grant the federal government--via the BLM--the right to own land?

The land in question should be either privately owned or at the very least owned by the State of Nevada. The BLM shouldn't even exist--just like the NSA, the TSA, the DEA, the CIA, the FBI, the DHS, and all the other stupid, worthless federal agencies.

If the people of the State of Nevada want to bring forth a complaint against Bundy, then, and only then, is there a legal issue.

Um, it isn't owned by the BLM. It is owned by the American people. The BLM is the steward of the land. I find it funny you think the federal government is worthless. Especially since you are using the Internet.

If so-called "public" land is owned by the "American People," then why are we--the American People--denied access to most of it?

If so-called "public" land is owned by the American People, then why do signs like this exist?

We the People own that land, so why are we told not to trespass onto our own property?

I warned you people back in 2007 that Obama was going to be a carbon-copy of Bush and would continue most of his policies. And you laughed at me. All I have to say about that is:

ATLborn79 wrote:Where in the Constitution does it grant the federal government--via the BLM--the right to own land?

The land in question should be either privately owned or at the very least owned by the State of Nevada. The BLM shouldn't even exist--just like the NSA, the TSA, the DEA, the CIA, the FBI, the DHS, and all the other stupid, worthless federal agencies.

If the people of the State of Nevada want to bring forth a complaint against Bundy, then, and only then, is there a legal issue.

Um, it isn't owned by the BLM. It is owned by the American people. The BLM is the steward of the land. I find it funny you think the federal government is worthless. Especially since you are using the Internet.

If so-called "public" land is owned by the "American People," then why are we--the American People--denied access to most of it?

If so-called "public" land is owned by the American People, then why do signs like this exist?

We the People own that land, so why are we told not to trespass onto our own property?

Should we take those signs down so you can wonder around on a military bombing range?

ATLborn79 wrote:The land in question should be either privately owned or at the very least owned by the State of Nevada. The BLM shouldn't even exist--just like the NSA, the TSA, the DEA, the CIA, the FBI, the DHS, and all the other stupid, worthless federal agencies.

If the people of the State of Nevada want to bring forth a complaint against Bundy, then, and only then, is there a legal issue.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2

I don't think the intended purpose of that paragraph was to condone the federal government owning thousands of square miles of land at taxpayer expense.

"Bundy revealed himself to be a hateful racist. But by denigrating people who work hard and play by the rules while he mooches off public land, he also revealed himself to be a hypocrite."

Harry Reid could well be speaking about the net tax recipient whom he and his party cater to, in order to create multigenerational government-dependent slaves, with no particular preference given to skin color or ethnicity. As long as you and your progeny suck at the Reid-fed teat, and, of course, continue to vote for him and his gals and pals, the old man loves you.

I just sent a very sizable check to the govt two weeks ago. How about you take your assumptions and...

“Inflation does not appear to be monetary base driven,” -- Arthur Laffer 01/03/2014

Let me know when he blows-up government buildings and murders people. Then he'd be the perfect Democrat, terrorist moron and worthy of having Bammie launch his election campaign in his living room.

Sounds like you are talking about Tim McVeigh who actually did blow up a building and murdered people , I don't think he was a Democrat

Well, there's the radical left Weather Underground. "Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for theoverthrow of the US government" and a campaign of bombings.

There was the far left Black Panther Party, who was confrontational and had violent tactics towards police.

So, even during the time this thread has been active, pretty much everyone who has publicly supported Bundy is now running for the hills, yet I'm seeing things posted about the "Weather Underground"? Seriously?

Although, it does tempt me to break out my copy of "Bringing It All Back Home".

It's hilarious how much these people want to run away from more recent right-wing crimes and immorality, and instead, cast back, what, 40-50 years to some marginal groups.

It's amusing they never, ever want to talk about the last president - George "He-Whose-Name-Shall-Not-Be-Uttered-Lest-There-Be-Serious-Butthurt" W. Bush, but are willing to comb through things all the way back to the sixties in a lame attempt to cast aspersions on liberals.

Oh, and don't bring up McVeigh, unless you have a fainting couch handy.

Violent radical groups must have hit a button. Only the left wing ones, that is.Their logic is relative. Time is, also. 50 years the expiration date expires? 40? But not 20?

Bringing up "Ronnie Raygun" and the Bush administration constantly is okay but denying comparisons to leftist behavior is outdated? Being 'butt-hurt' because there were worse happenings in the name of government defiance and saying it's a lame attempt to cast aspersions on the left? How about those groups make the Bunkerville fiasco look like pikers. Yet it isn't a lame attempt. It is spot on and that's what so bothersome to liberals!

Hum. Convenient on what applies, or not.

I assume in 30 years this will not matter, then. Why make a big stink about an isolated case then. Nah, that's not how liberals roll. They need something to clutch their pearls about!

‎"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." ~John Adams

1.) We don't need a military--if we stay the hell out of the rest of the world we can have state-run militias and private companies (no, not Blackwater) to protect the borders.

2.) 99.9% of what the federal government does is bad. It's why this country has devolved into a fascist, corporatist, militarized police state.

You are living in a fantasy world man. The founders tried the no military route. It didn't work.

And no, 99.9% of the fed government is not bad. Lets change the parts we don't like. Lets pass a constitutional amendment to get corporate money out of politics. But we don't need a revolution to change the parts of the fed government we don't like. The founder gave us the power to change those things in the legislature.

People are so easily distracted, it's really kind of sad.My support of Bundy's position has nothing to do with whether he is a good person or on the right side of the law. It has only to do with the feds sending a small army threatening deadly force to settle a debt. The BLM is completely out of control and the vitriolic attacks from "Dirty Harry" Reid in his attempt to label people exercising civil disobedience as terrorists are beyond the pale.

None of that has changed in the past 48 hours. Bundy may be a bigot or a racist, but it really isn't about him, it's about them. Anyone who's position changes based on what the man says or thinks, likely were supporting him for the wrong reasons anyway.

The Westboro Baptist freaks are as disgusting as anyone, but that doesn't mean I don't support their right to be that way. Also, Bundy may be legally wrong, but Americans have been challenging laws they feel are unjust for the entire history of this country. In fact, it is the left that always seems to look at civil disobedience as a virtuous act... until it's someone they disagree with.

So, if his comments changed your mind, your mind was probably in the wrong place anyway. Let the liberals chirp away and try and explain how his bigotry or racism excuses the government's abusive actions a week earlier.

I am what I am - Popeye the SailorI don't care what you do, I wouldn't want to be like you - Alan Parson's Project

TheDuke wrote:My support of Bundy's position has nothing to do with whether he is a good person or on the right side of the law. It has only to do with the feds sending a small army threatening deadly force to settle a debt. The BLM is completely out of control and the vitriolic attacks from "Dirty Harry" Reid in his attempt to label people exercising civil disobedience as terrorists are beyond the pale.

You need to look up civic disobedience. It does not include threats of violence or an armed force moving toward police.

And how do you propose we enforce our court orders and laws? Asking people nicely didn't work. They were not there to collect a debt they were there to move the cattle off the land that Bundy refused to remove from the land. After the BLM were attacked and forced to use a tazer on one of the Bundy's clan, should they have shown up the next day with less support?

Sally wrote;After the BLM were attacked and forced to use a tazer on one of the Bundy's clan, should they have shown up the next day with less support?

I'm pretty sure the BLM weren't attacked. They tazered the son because he stood in front of a dump truck(so obviously they were "forced to"). If he had 'attacked' an agent you can be sure that he would have been charged with assault on an officer. I haven't heard about any such charges.

"Dokter Zoom" on the Wonkette, an über-left, satiric, 'Onion' like blog?!

It's amazing how Chuck and you actually get your 'news' there and cite that when you could have dignified it's credibility with a legitimate source, yet spend so much breath worrying about Fox.

Jus' saying!

*Nice to see Reid's, Valerie Jarrett's ("...[who] came with the idea of using the words "hostage", and "ransom," and "terrorists" against the Republicans.’ "), Bloomberg's and OfA's campaign of "For the Hearts and Minds of America" in full swing.

‎"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." ~John Adams

"Dokter Zoom" on the Wonkette, an über-left, satiric, 'Onion' like blog?!

It's amazing how Chuck and you actually get your 'news' there and cite that when you could have dignified it's credibility with a legitimate source, yet spend so much breath worrying about Fox.

Jus' saying!

*Nice to see Reid's, Valerie Jarrett's ("...[who] came with the idea of using the words "hostage", and "ransom," and "terrorists" against the Republicans.’ "), Bloomberg's and OfA's campaign of "For the Hearts and Minds of America" in full swing.

That story is all over the place, but I could have simply referenced the 1998 court ruling against Bundy where the judge used those property records in his ruling. The source I used does not change the fact that Bundy has been lying about how long his family has been on the land.